The critique explores Daniel 7’s “one like a son of man,” arguing the figure represents the faithful in Israel during the 2nd-century BC crisis under Antiochus Epiphanes. The beasts symbolize pagan empires; judgment transfers dominion from them to the suffering righteous, with the human-like figure receiving authority on their behalf. This is not a divine being but a representative of a purified people. Jesus, unlike later apocalyptic traditions, closely follows Daniel’s imagery, identifying himself with this figure and promising vindication after Jerusalem’s fall. Though not corporate in later Jewish interpretation, the Son of Man embodies and includes the righteous community.
A. J. Derxsen appears to be a rather conservative, Reformed American blogger, so I’m a bit surprised he bothered to read and comment on my post “Who is Daniel’s son of man?” But he did, and I appreciate it, and here’s an attempt to address the counter-assertions made in his brief critique. It’s far from an adequate response given the amount of scholarship on the subject and the range of opinions, but it did lead to me to wonder if there isn’t something else going on with Daniel’s “coming with the clouds of heaven” imagery.
There’s nothing in the immediate context of Daniel 7 that points to its fulfillment in the 2nd century BC. Its self-evident scope goes well beyond that era.
The “one like a son of man” appears following judgment against the four beastly kingdoms that emerge from the sea. The fourth beast is especially destructive. The little horn on its head is a king who “shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High” (Dan. 7:25*).
This appears to be the same successor to the “Greek” kingdom of Alexander the Great (11:3-4) who would seduce many in Israel, profane the sanctuary, and persecute conservative Jews who stayed loyal to the covenant, who would “exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and… speak astonishing things against the God of gods” (Dan. 11:36).
There is, in fact, no basis for the view that the scope of Daniel 7 extends beyond the 2nd century BC. The temporal markers indicate that the “end” described in chapter 12 is directly related to the crisis provoked by Antiochus Epiphanes, from which Israel would at that time be delivered (12:1).
Daniel nowhere identifies the “one like a son of man” as a corporate entity.
Daniel saw visions “by night.” Four beasts come from the sea symbolically representing four kingdoms (7:2-3); the first three are like certain ferocious animals—lion, bear, leopard. The fourth beast stands apart, unlike any particular creature, but exceeding all in its destructive power.
Then Daniel sees “in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a human person, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him” (7:13). The “one like a son of man” exists in the same symbolic universe as the four beasts.
We have a similar contrast in Psalm 80. The spreading vine of Israel is being ravaged by a beast from the forest—a wild boar. The psalmist beseeches God to save his “son’” Israel: “let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself” (Ps. 80:17). In this case, the beast and the “son of man” are both, in their different ways, corporate figures in a symbolic narrative.
The four beasts of Daniel 7:1-8 are judged and the Ancient of Days gives to the son of man figure “dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (7:14).
It is later said that the Ancient of Days came to earth and gave judgment “for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom” (7:22). Also, the court sits in judgment, and rule over the nations formerly subject to the tyrant is given to the “people of the saints of the Most High” (7:27).
Whether an individual Son of Man features in the interpretation is uncertain (7:27), but the emphasis has very clearly shifted to that part of Israel which remains faithful to YHWH when the Greek king seeks to “change the times and the Law” (7:25). The nations of the wider region will no longer be ruled by the Babylonians or the Greeks but by that part of Israel which has proved itself righteous in the fight against a brutal Hellenistic “modernisation.”
I think it very unlikely that rule over the nations is given to celestial beings designated as “the holy ones of the Most High,” but in any case, it is also asserted that “the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones (ʿam qaddishe) of the Most High” (7:27*). The same Greek king will “destroy mighty men and the people who are the saints (ʿam qedoshim)” (8:24).
In the Septuagint we have: “he will destroy the powerful and the common people of the holy ones (dēmon hagiōn). And his thought will be against the holy ones (hagious)” (8:24-25; cf. Ps. 15:3; 33:10; 67:36; 82:4; Wis. 5:5; Tob. 8:15; 12:15; 1 Macc. 1:46). The greatness of the kingdoms will be given to the “holy people (laōi hagiōi) of the Most High” (7:27).
In the resolution of the crisis described in chapter 12, Israel is referred to as Daniel’s “people” (ʿam) and as a “holy people” (ʿam qodesh) whose “hand” has been shattered by the Greek tyrant (12:1, 7).
The scenario is that at a time of severe political-religious crisis for Israel YHWH comes from heaven to intervene and pass judgment, bringing the hegemony of the pagan empires to an end and transferring this dominion—and the glory that went with it—to the suffering righteous in Israel. The figure in human form presented to the Ancient of Days, either symbolically or in some more literal fashion, receives kingdom on behalf of this group.
Jesus takes this narrative and applies it—knowingly, I think—to himself and to his disciples: they will take up their crosses and follow him down a path of suffering; but in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the Son of Man will be seen prophetically to come with the kingdom and glory that he has received from his Father to deliver, vindicate, and reward his persecuted followers.
There is no known pre-Christian Jewish interpretation of the Danielic “one like a son of man” as a corporate symbol for Israel. The corporate interpretation shows up only after Christianity begins claiming Daniel 7 for Jesus — i.e., in later rabbinic literature, which very clearly has polemical motives.
This may be true, but the account of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch is further removed from Daniel 7 than Jesus’ use of the expression. There is no “coming with the clouds of heaven” in 1 Enoch, and there is a great deal of apocalyptic detail that is not found in Daniel 7. Jesus stays much closer to the prophetic text: the Son of Man will come with the clouds of heaven to receive kingdom and glory, etc. Jesus is one of the prophets, not one of the apocalypticists.
We find, nevertheless, in 1 Enoch the same close association of the Son of Man with the suffering righteous in Israel that we see in the Gospels:
The righteous and elect ones shall be saved on that day…. The Lord of the Spirits will abide over them; they shall eat and rest and rise with that Son of Man forever and ever. (1 Enoch 62:13-14)
Together with you shall be their dwelling places; and together with you shall be their portion. They shall not be separated from you forever and ever and ever.” So there shall be length of days with that Son of Man, and peace to the righteous ones; his path is upright for the righteous, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits forever and ever. (1 Enoch 71:16-17)
This Son of Man is not a “corporate symbol” any more than Jesus is, but the community of the righteous is included in him and in his experience. He is still a representative figure.
Daniel’s phrase “coming on the clouds” is a marker of deity.
At the beginning of the sequence of visions, we read: “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another” (Dan. 7:2-3). This vision culminates in a divine judgment on earth; the court takes away dominion from the beasts and the fourth beast is destroyed.
The vision formula is repeated in verse 13: “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom…” (Dan. 7:13-14).
So the winds of heaven generate the marine chaos that produces the four overbearing kingdoms that have dominated Israel’s world; and the clouds of heaven peaceably attend the appearance of that individual or community which will receive the political authority taken from the beasts. Curiously, in 4 Ezra 13:3 the two motifs are combined:
And I looked, and behold, this wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And I looked, and behold, that man flew with the clouds of heaven….
These are not the clouds, therefore, on which YHWH rides when he comes as a warrior to intervene on earth (cf. Is. 19:1). They belong rather to the parallelism between two very different styles of kingdom. Both have a heavenly origin, because all royal authority is established and removed by God (cf. Dan. 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21, 25-28; Rom. 13:1-2). But whereas the pagan empires are violent and unjust, the empire of YHWH, in the hands of a people purified by suffering, will be righteous.
The “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14 is not God but a human person or community which is given authority to rule by God.
Would it be sensible however to assume that Jesus and/or the literary community that produced the gospels had some literary/traditional dependence on 1 Enoch, or at least on the cross-fertilized traditions we’d today consider extra canonical? After all, 1 Enoch is probably the single most relevant piece of writing as regards a fully individualized “Son of Man” based off the Danielic Son of Man.
Given that some NT writers as well as some early Christian communities did indeed use the book of Enoch, there is at least some logical precedence for 1 Enoch forming at least part of the basis for the NT++ Son of Man motif.
As an aside, I’d also like to hear your thoughts about the following. While it’s plain that The Son of Man is not divine (or God) in the same way as the Ancient of days/The Father is in both Daniel and the NT, Revelation 1 does present a striking portrayal that evokes an Angelic, Priestly, and Ancient-of-days like hybrid (one like a) Son of Man. While it still makes curious nuances in the parallel titles (first and last, living one) that distinguishes Him from the One who sits on the Throne, apart from the historical-political schema, could we say that this indeed fits into some kind of “Divine Son of Man” schema that existed by the first century?
Recent comments